Restricted The Case of the South against the North

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,519
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Once Davis was convinced Lincoln meant war, don't you reckon his more immediate concern was doubling his white population by bringing in the four upper-South states than about a bunch of enraged Yankees?
He was convinced of war from the get go.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
So the Protective Tariff was the cost of doing business for the South.
Sir, it was the cost of doing business in the United States regardless of geographic region. Some of the loudest voices against it were the owners of the New York Central, Pennsylvania, B & O, and every other railroad. British rail was cheaper and better than what American producers were capable of turning out at the time. Tariffs effected everyone - for good or for ill.
1580

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
So is the argument then that Southerners paid 'tax' in the form of higher prices charged by Northern merchants due to the cost of imports?
Indeed sir, which if true begs the question of why someone didn't import directly to Southern ports, (where the import charges are exactly the same as Northern ports), cut out the Northern 'middleman', charge slightly less than 're-imported' goods from the North, and reap a greater profit for a small increase in transportation cost?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,775
Location
Denver, CO
If the federal budget in 1860 was $78M and the south paid half of it, with far less than half of the population, then their share was $40M. Fighting a $2B war with the costs paid up front, with 300,000 lives lost, seems a poor way to avoid and annual obligation of $40M per year, most of which will have to be spent by a Confederate government anyway to fight Indians and prevent slave raiders from emptying Tennessee or Kentucky of slaves.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_1859_US_fed
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,519
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Indeed sir, which if true begs the question of why someone didn't import directly to Southern ports, (where the import charges are exactly the same as Northern ports), cut out the Northern 'middleman', charge slightly less than 're-imported' Northern goods, and reap a greater profit for a small increase in transportation cost?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.

Chapter I agitation in behalf of direct trade with Europe, 1837-1839

The short story is that Southerners resented Northern economic dominance. They had a lot of meeting with little result.

Prior to Independence Southern ports imported and export the same as the Northern but after independence imports stagnated. Exports(Cotton?) grew very rapidity. From the available records, The South did not consume their proportionate share of imports.

In colonial days the exports and imports of the Southern colonies compared very favorably in amount with those of the Northern; but shortly after independence from Great Britain was achieved, it became apparent that the importing business of the nation was being concentrated in Northern ports. As the years went by the concentration became more and more pronounced. While the exports of the staple producing states grew at a phenomenal rate, the value of the imports into Southern ports remained almost stationary or grew very slowly. This was particularly true in the case of the Atlantic ports. In the case of New Orleans, for long almost the sole outlet for the commerce of the rapidly filling Mississippi valley, there was early in the last century phenomenal increase in both exports and imports; but after about 1835 the latter increased very slowly, while the former continued to grow at the same remarkable rate. Prior to the Civil War the imports of the Northern states greatly exceeded their exports. In the Southern States the reverse was the case. A com- parison of the exports from all Southern ports with those from all Northern ports shows that after about 1830 the former always exceeded, and sometimes greatly exceeded, the latter. The imports of the Southern ports, however, were only a fraction of the imports of Northern ports, and became proportionally less as the years went by.1 If the growing superiority of the North in population be remembered, and the comparison be made on the basis of population, the disparity is still striking. It indicates that either the people of the South did not consume their proportionate share of the nation's imports, or that Northern merchants imported largely on Southern account, or both.

View attachment 257916
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,775
Location
Denver, CO
I suspect they did have a gripe with the northern states. But the federal government was small and most of its efforts were spent on naval vessels and fighting Indians.
The real problem with the northern states is the banks were extremely sound and were driving the unbacked currencies out by buying them up and redeeming them.
The northern states were far ahead in education.
Not only that but by the north was favored by geography with the Great Lakes and good railroad routes.
The things the southerners may have resented were probably that the northern folks had created both a merchant and military navy, a banking system, railroads and the beginnings of an educational system.
The south in contrast had built their version of the ancient Roman Empire. Without the monumental architecture.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,775
Location
Denver, CO
I suppose they thought they might function without protection from the US government. But they would have found the freight charges imposed by the British and French to be burdensome and credit for railroads in Texas hard to come by.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
The real problem with the northern states is the banks were extremely sound and were driving the unbacked currencies out by buying them up and redeeming them.
The Troubled World of Antebellum Banking in Georgia
By Carole E. Scott

The following article was written in 2016 to provide additional material for a 2000 B>Quest article about antebellum banking in the South. Scott is the editor of B>Quest, 1996-2016

Throughout the nation before the Civil War the appropriate role—if any—and structure of banking was a major political issue. Banking in Georgia was embroiled in struggles between agricultural and commercial interests and between the less developed up country and the low country.


https://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2000/antebellumGAbanks.pdf

Sweet Dreams,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,537
...and credit for railroads in Texas hard to come by.
Credit for any internal improvements would have been difficult to obtain or extremely expensive. If the South wanted to become a supplier of the finished products or even a semi-finished products from the wealth of her raw materials, she is going to need a greatly expanded industrial infrastructure. Unless she wished to remain simply a provider of basic resources...and import much of what she needed.
1751

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,775
Location
Denver, CO
The Boston and Philadelphia bankers could find the banks issuing notes without specie backing and with a distribution of non performing loans and had good enough lawyers to enforce redemption, or cause the bank to collapse.
The potential for fraud in state created banks, in the south and the Midwest was enormous.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,393

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
Bet it was a great White Perspective Analysis. Wonder how the Negroes viewed it. Yankee masters sent them back to the Plantations on Contracts the Federal Government chose for them, all forced.
They were happy to be paid for their work and to be safe from being sold away from their families or having their families sold away from them.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,591
The northern states were far ahead in education.
Not only that but by the north was favored by geography with the Great Lakes and good railroad routes.

The things the southerners may have resented were probably that the northern folks had created both a merchant and military navy, a banking system, railroads and the beginnings of an educational system.
The south in contrast had built their version of the ancient Roman Empire. Without the monumental architecture.






Very true, in fact, this discrepancy, did not just happen where and when it did, by just luck.

In economic terms, the North had developed a market for imports, because it had a growing population or consumers, with enough disposable income to support the cost of importing.

The South, IMO, did not share a proportional part of the Nation's imports because, the markets for those imports was not proportional, i.e., the bigger part of the market was North, Not South.
 

Virginia Dave

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
659
Location
Waynesboro, Virginia
I have read in places that taxation was a part of the problem. That it was unfair to the southern states, but none of that was disclosed by the declaration. Perhaps I missed it as I minutes ago read the entire declaration for the first time. This is great I am learning a lot. Thank all of you for your posts. Please continue.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,775
Location
Denver, CO
In the war itself, once the United States eliminated New Orleans as a competitor to Chicago and Cincinnati, and the US controlled the Mississippi as far south as Memphis, the economic part of the war was over.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,972
Location
Midwest
I recommend reading Avery O. Craven's The Growth of Southern Nationalism 1848-1861 for a study of Southern grievances leading to secession.
Apparently this 1953 book is still a good reference, thanks. (i.e according to one reviewer “…Although this book is now over 50 years old, it remains a classic and well suited for any university survey course or graduate work.” - Glen Ely), so I'm gonna find a copy and read it.

But still, according to reviews, some listed here below, Craven’s description of southern nationalism -- the grievances the South had -- were primarily tied to slavery after all.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reviews of The Growth of Southern Nationalism, 1848-1861. By Avery O. Craven. Louisiana State University Press: United States of America, 1953:

“…this is a book written in a certain time period. In spite of it's incisive academic points, there are segments of the text that appear downright insensitive, or overly emotional or sympathetic to the plight of one group or another …For a casual reader of today, however, one might be taken back at some of the dated sentiments, especially in regards to slavery.” (John McCarron)

“…The problem with Craven’s analysis is obvious: slavery was not just a symbolic political issue but a very real institution that held millions of men, women, and children in bondage in the South. And those Southern states who voluntarily left the Union and formed the Confederacy did not do so to defend an abstraction but, rather, to preserve the “peculiar institution” where it stood.” (Joseph Rzeppa)

“…Southerners knew that without additional territory and economic growth the South would fall behind the North both politically and economically. Additional slave states meant not only increased cotton production, but also more Southern representation in Congress…" (Glen Ely)

“… Cravens studied the drift to civil war, focusing on how the sectional divisions became irresolvable in the democratic process… an urge to fight inequality of opportunity and distribution of wealth that eventually became an attack on the greatest violation of democratic ideals, slavery.” (Harold Rich)
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top